CMR WINS DECISIVE VICTORY

Good news for military aviation, especially the Navy Carrier Pilots.  The
courts finally threw out a very expensive harrasment lawsuit filed against
Elaine Donnelly who blew the whistle on the Navy's efforts to
carrier-qualify female Navy pilot, Lt. Carey Dunai Lohrenz, who was
consistently unable to meet training standards.   The Navy would not allow
instructor pilots (some now retired) to testify on behalf of CMR's
defense.  I had contributed to Elaine Donnelly's defense fund and am
delighted that justice finally prevailed.

This was a hang-over from the days of the Clintonista administration,
which had done immense harm to our military readiness.  As Secretary
Rumsfeld said, "it will take years to recover" from the damage.  Recently,
Elaine had been awarded the Ronald Reagan freedom medal for her efforts to
expose some of the irrational conduct by DOD and the old DACOWITZ
gang.  My congratulations and gratitude for Elaine's contribution to our
nation's military.

Nick Pishvanov

Center for Military Readiness

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: CMR WINS DECISIVE VICTORY
8/20/2002 12:36:00 PM
[url]http://www.cmrlink.org/CMRLawsuit.asp?docID=161[/url]

The Center for Military Readiness is celebrating victory in litigation
that President Elaine Donnelly described as "Pure harassment by feminist
advocates who misused the Court to threaten my rights of free speech. This
victory upholds the right of CMR to question official policies that
elevate risks, and to advocate high, uncompromised standards in naval
aviation training."

The lawsuit was filed in April 1996 by former Lt. Carey Dunai Lohrenz, who
was one of the first two women trained to fly the F-14 Tomcat. In October
1994 her colleague, Lt. Kara Hultgreen, crashed and died while attempting
to land on the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Lohrenz was removed from
carrier aviation in May 1995, due to flawed flying techniques that her
superiors described as "unsafe, undisciplined, and unpredictable." With
the help of attorney Susan Barnes, a feminist activist, Lohrenz blamed
Donnelly for causing her to wash out by publishing the 1995 CMR Special
Report: Double Standards in Naval Aviation Training. The 20-page report,
backed by 104 pages of training records and related documents, exposed a
pattern of low scores and major errors in the F-14 training of both women
that may have contributed to the tragic death of Kara Hultgreen.

On Friday, August 16, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia GRANTED CMR's Motion for
Summary Judgment, dismissing Lohrenz's action "with prejudice."

Judge Lamberth also DENIED a cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
filed by Lohrenz, who asked the Court to declare her a "private
individual" eligible to sue Donnelly and CMR for libel and defamation.
Instead, Judge Lamberth found Lohrenz to be a "limited purpose public
figure," who was featured in abundant news coverage since 1991. Lohrenz
was at the epicenter of a significant public controversy--not just women
in combat aviation, but long-standing questions about special treatment in
training. That controversy intensified after the death of Lt. Kara Hultgreen.

CMR lead attorney Kent Masterson Brown, of counsel with Webster,
Chamberlain & Bean in Washington D.C., hailed the massive, well reasoned
55-page opinion as "A tremendous victory for the First Amendment." Brown
noted that, "Even though Judge Lamberth properly considered the evidence
'in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,' he found that Elaine
Donnelly and CMR acted responsibly and without 'actual malice'."

In the Court's opinion, Lamberth found that since "Donnelly [took] care in
verifying her facts and sources," he could not rule in favor of the
plaintiff, Carey Lohrenz. "Donnelly did obtain portions of plaintiff's
training records, did confirm that the facts contained in those records
were correct, and did base her publication on those portions."

The Court acknowledged that some Navy officials disagreed with Donnelly's
conclusions, even as they confirmed that the facts she had obtained from
her source were "largely accurate." The opinion affirms that Donnelly had
the First Amendment right to question "the Navy's 'party line',"
especially since experienced aviators who reviewed Lohrenz's training
records told her that they were the worst they had ever seen.

The controversy began in 1994, when one of the women's instructors,
then-Lt. Patrick (Jerry) Burns, expressed his concerns to local commanders
about the women's safety and competence. In the aftermath of the Tailhook
scandal, Burns and other instructors were told that the women were going
to graduate to the fleet, no matter what.

Navy public affairs officials led the nation to believe that Lt.
Hultgreen's death was primarily due to engine failure, rather than pilot
error. At that point Burns called and then sent a signed letter to
Donnelly, asking for her assistance in informing high-level officials of
special concessions in training that may have contributed to the death of
Hultgreen.

The opinion affirmed, "[T]his Court's review of the letter sent from Lt.
Burns to defendant Donnelly clearly reveals the letter as one that would
not be immediately suspect or one that would provide "obvious reasons" to
doubt its veracity; much to the contrary, the letter is replete with
technical vocabulary, dates, scores, and details that appear to validate
the experience and knowledge of the author."

Elaine Donnelly expressed great satisfaction that the Court ruled in her
favor, just as she predicted it would all along. She noted that "In 1995 I
learned that the information I had was 'largely accurate,' but top
officials of the Navy had no intention of admitting there was a problem or
doing anything about it.

"This victory will strengthen the Navy by discouraging official cover-ups,
as well as any repetition of double standards in training that elevate
risks and undermine morale."

-- End

It's a start...[frag]

btt